This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-772
entitled 'U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach
Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program
Objectives' which was released on July 15, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives:
July 2003:
U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING:
New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks
Measurable Program Objectives:
GAO-03-772:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-772, a report to the Committee on International
Relations, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Prompted by a desire to reverse declining audience trends and to
support the war on terrorism, the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG), the agency responsible for U.S. international broadcasting,
began developing its new strategic approach to international
broadcasting in July 2001. This approach emphasizes the need to reach
mass audiences by applying modern broadcast techniques and
strategically allocating resources to focus on high-priority markets.
GAO was asked to examine (1) whether recent program initiatives have
adhered to the Board's new strategic approach to broadcasting, (2) how
the approach’s effectiveness will be assessed, and (3) what critical
challenges the Board faces in executing its strategy and how these
challenges will be addressed.
What GAO Found:
Consistent with its new plan to dramatically increase the size of U.S.
international broadcasting listening and viewing audiences in markets
of U.S. strategic interest, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has
launched several new projects, including Radio Sawa in the Middle
East, Radio Farda in Iran, and the Afghanistan Radio Network. These
projects adhere to the Board’s core strategy of identifying a target
audience and tailoring each broadcast product to market circumstances
and audience needs.
The Board’s plan lacks measurable program objectives designed to gauge
the success of its new approach to broadcasting, detailed
implementation strategies, resource needs, and project time frames.
A number of key effectiveness measures could provide a starting point
for developing measurable program objectives and related performance
goals and indicators under the Board’s annual performance plan. These
measures include audience size in specific markets, audience
awareness, broadcaster credibility, and whether the Voice of America
(VOA) effectively presents information about U.S. thought,
institutions, and policies to target audiences.
The Board has identified a number of market and internal challenges--
such as technological innovation and better coordination of its seven
separate broadcast entities--that must be addressed to make U.S.
international broadcasting more competitive. It has also developed a
number of solutions to address these challenges. However, the Board
has not addressed how many language services it can carry effectively
(with the number rising nearly 20 percent over the past 10 years) and
what level of overlap and duplication in VOA and surrogate broadcast
services would be appropriate under its new approach to broadcasting.
Resolving these questions will have significant resource implications
for the Board and its ability to reach larger audiences in high-
priority markets.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes recommendations to the BBG on (1) revising its strategic
plan to include measurable program objectives, implementation
strategies, resource requirements, and project time frames; (2)
including audience size and other key effectiveness measures as
program objectives in the strategic plan; (3) revising its annual
performance plan to track the Board’s revised strategic plan; and (4)
revising the strategic plan to include a clear vision of the Board’s
intended scope of operations. The Board stated that it largely
concurred with our report recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-772
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Projects Supporting War on Terrorism Adhere to Board's New Approach:
Effectiveness Is Difficult to Assess Absent Measurable Program
Objectives:
Board Plans to Address Many Challenges, but Scope of Operations May
Limit Its Impact:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Challenges Facing U.S. International Broadcasting:
Appendix II: Survey Development:
Appendix III: Survey of Program Managers of U.S. International
Broadcasting Entities:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Table 1: The Board’s Recently Implemented Initiatives:
Table 2: Costs of BBG New Initiatives:
Table 3: Planned Actions and Additional Options:
Table 4: Board-Identified Challenges:
Table 5: Proposed Solutions--Strategic Goals and Objectives:
Figures:
Figure 1: U.S. Public Diplomacy Community:
Figure 2: The Board’s New Strategic Plan:
Abbreviations:
ARN: Afghanistan Radio Network:
BBG: Broadcasting Board of Governors:
CEO: Chief Executive Officer:
COO: Chief Operating Officer:
IBB: International Broadcasting Bureau:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
RFA: Radio Free Asia:
RFE/RL: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
VOA: Voice of America:
Letter July 15, 2003:
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Lantos
Ranking Minority Member
International Relations Committee
House of Representatives:
Millions of foreign listeners and viewers turn each week to U.S.
international broadcasting to obtain news and information about the
United States and the world. However, the United States' share in
several broadcast markets has been declining or static for decades due
to increasing competition and an outdated approach to broadcasting.
Prompted by a desire to reverse this trend and a sense of urgency
created by the war on terrorism, the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG or the "Board"),[Footnote 1] the agency responsible for
nonmilitary U.S. international broadcasting programs, initiated a new
strategic approach to international broadcasting in July 2001. The new
strategy emphasizes the need to reach large audiences by applying
modern broadcast techniques and strategically allocating resources to
focus on high-priority broadcast markets, such as the Middle East.
The BBG and the Department of State share an annual budget of about $1
billion for public diplomacy activities designed to inform, engage, and
influence foreign audiences. The BBG manages and oversees the Voice of
America (VOA), WorldNet Television and Film Service, Radio/TV Marti,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and Radio
Farda (collectively referred to as the broadcast entities). This report
focuses on the BBG's public diplomacy efforts. A planned follow-on
report will assess the Department of State's public diplomacy efforts.
As agreed with your staff, this report examines (1) whether recent
program initiatives have adhered to the Board's new strategic approach
to broadcasting, (2) how the approach's effectiveness will be assessed,
and (3) what critical challenges the Board faces in executing its
strategy and how these challenges will be addressed.
To accomplish our objectives, we met with individual Board members and
senior managers from each broadcast entity (including Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty officials in Prague) to discuss a range of
management issues including the Board's new 5-year strategic plan
(titled "Marrying the Mission to the Market" and issued in December
2002), which defines the Board's new approach to broadcasting. We met
with foreign ministry officials in London and Berlin and broadcasting
officials from the British Broadcasting Corporation in London and
Deutsche Welle in Cologne and Berlin to compare their respective
approaches to public diplomacy and international broadcasting with the
Board's activities. We also met with several private sector audience
research firms to discuss a range of performance management and
measurement issues. Finally, we administered a survey to 34 senior
program managers across all 7 BBG broadcast entities to obtain their
views on strategic planning, current operations, program challenges,
and various program options.
Results in Brief:
Consistent with its new strategic approach to broadcasting, the Board
has initiated several new programs focusing on attracting larger
audiences in priority markets and supporting the war on terrorism.
Launched in March 2002, Radio Sawa in the Middle East replaced VOA's
Arabic-language service and represents the Board's first attempt to
implement the new tailored approach to broadcasting. Based on extensive
research of the target audience, Radio Sawa incorporates brief news
bulletins in a popular music format aimed at young listeners. A new
initiative in Afghanistan called the Afghanistan Radio Network and a
language service to Iran called Radio Farda also have adhered to the
Board's new broadcasting approach and support the Board's efforts in
the war on terrorism. Estimated start-up and recurring costs for these
three projects through fiscal year 2003 total about $116 million. As
funds become available, the Board intends to launch other high-priority
projects using its new broadcasting approach, such as an Arabic
language television network in the Middle East.
While the Board's new approach to broadcasting is based on the need to
reach large audiences in priority markets, there is not a single long-
term strategic goal or related program objective to gauge the Board's
success in increasing audience size. Further, the strategic goals that
are included in the plan (for example, employing modern broadcast
techniques, assuring broadcaster credibility, and telling America's
story) are not supported by measurable program objectives and do not
provide a basis for assessing the Board's performance in these key
areas. While we recognize that measuring impact is complex, we
identified a number of key effectiveness measures that could form a
starting point for creating measurable program objectives that support
the full range of the Board's strategic goals. These measures include
audience size in specific markets; audience awareness of BBG
broadcasting; the credibility of U.S. language service broadcasts; and
whether VOA language services effectively present information about
U.S. thought, institutions, and policies to target audiences.
The Board's key challenge in executing its strategy is how to generate
large audiences while dealing with a number of market, organizational,
and resource issues. The Board identified several shortcomings in U.S.
market competitiveness including outdated programs and delivery
systems. It plans to overcome these problems by promoting, among other
things, new formats and technologies. Topping the list of
organizational challenges is the disparate structure of the agency,
which consists of seven separate broadcast entities and a mix of
federal agency and grantee organizations that must be collectively
managed by a part-time Board of Governors. To overcome this challenge,
the Board proposes treating the broadcast services of the separate
entities as a "single system" under the Board's direct control and
ongoing oversight. While the Board's solutions to many of its
challenges may suffice, our analysis revealed that a number of other
program options could be considered in the future if the Board's
efforts falter or prove ineffective. One option would be to further
consolidate all entities into one organization to streamline the
management structure, simplify budget and programming decisions, and
reduce duplicative staff and functions. Finally, the Board has
concluded that the agency's resources are currently spread across too
many language services. We found strong support among BBG managers for
cutting the number of language services to focus resources on a limited
number of priority markets. However, the Board has not established a
strategic vision for how many languages should be pursued and what
level of overlap and duplication among its many entities is
appropriate.
This report makes several recommendations to the Board to help improve
agency operations and measurement of program performance. The Board
provided written comments on a draft of this report and largely
concurred with our report recommendations.
Background:
U.S. international broadcasting efforts support the three key
objectives of U.S. public diplomacy, which are to engage, inform, and
influence overseas audiences. As a news organization, the BBG must
maintain its journalistic independence while also serving U.S.
strategic interests as a member of the public diplomacy apparatus. To
fulfill this latter role, the BBG seeks input from the Department of
State and the larger public diplomacy community in formulating its
broadcast plans and making annual decisions on the deletion and
addition of language services. The Secretary of State serves as a
member of the Board, further strengthening coordination efforts. Within
the BBG, VOA, Radio/TV Marti, and WorldNet Television, are organized as
federal entities, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free
Asia operate as independent, nonprofit corporations and are funded by
Board grants. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and
Radio/TV Marti function as "surrogate" broadcasters where a local free
press does not exist. Congress created the International Broadcasting
Bureau (IBB)[Footnote 2] in 1994 in an effort to streamline and
consolidate certain broadcast operations.
Figure 1 illustrates the Board's placement in the U.S. public diplomacy
hierarchy and its current organizational structure.
Figure 1: U.S. Public Diplomacy Community:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Relevant White House Offices include the National Security Council
and the Office of Global Communications.
[B] While not considered a major public diplomacy player, USAID
activities contribute to U.S. public relations and media development
efforts.
[End of figure]
Each U.S. broadcast entity is organized around a collection of language
services that produce program content. In some instances, both VOA and
a surrogate broadcaster run "overlapping" services due to the different
missions pursued by VOA and the surrogates. For example, both VOA and
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have their own Russian language
service. The BBG currently has a collection of 97 language services--
with a 55 percent overlap between VOA and the surrogates broadcasting
in the same language.
The Mission of U.S. International Broadcasting:
Each broadcast entity has its own legislated mandate. VOA's mandate is
to (1) serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate,
objective, and comprehensive source of news; (2) represent America, not
any single segment of American society, and therefore present a
balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought
and institutions; and (3) present the policies of the United States
clearly and effectively and also present responsible discussions and
opinion on these policies.[Footnote 3] In contrast, the role of the
surrogate broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free
Asia, and Radio/TV Marti) is to temporarily replace the local media of
countries where a free and open press does not exist. WorldNet
Television and Film Service provides production and distribution
support for television broadcasts developed by VOA and the Department
of State. The Board's public diplomacy mandate also includes helping to
develop independent media and raising journalistic standards where
possible.
The Board's New Strategic Approach:
The Board's new approach to broadcasting represents an ambitious
attempt to reach larger audiences in key markets. To do this, it seeks
creative solutions that prioritize the use of limited resources and
marry the mission of U.S. international broadcasting to the needs and
wants of target audiences. The Board's new strategic plan was issued in
December 2002; however, development of its new approach to broadcasting
began in July 2001. The plan was developed to address declining
audience share in key markets such as Russia and historically static
performance in key strategic regions such as the Middle East. For
example, the BBG had a 21 percent market share in Russia in the early
1990s that has declined to about 4 percent of the adult listening
audience in recent years. In the Middle East, the VOA's Arabic service
has for decades reached less than 2 percent of potential listeners.
The Board's new plan outlines a strategic vision for U.S. international
broadcasting that is designed to move the organization toward a market-
based approach that will generate the large listening audiences in
priority markets that the Board believes it must reach to effectively
meet its mission. Early implementation of the plan has focused on
markets relevant:
to the war on terrorism;[Footnote 4] however, the Board intends that
many elements of its new approach will be applied to many of its
language services over time. The Board's vision is to create a
flexible, multimedia, research-driven U.S. international broadcasting
system. This system will incorporate regional networks and single-
country operations to reach large audiences by programming the distinct
content of VOA and the surrogate services through state-of-the-art
formats and distribution channels controlled by the Board.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the Board's new strategic plan and
shows the links among the Board's mission statement, vision statement,
broadcast priorities, strategic goals, and program objectives. Appendix
I provides a complete list of the goals and objectives.
Figure 2: The Board's New Strategic Plan:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Strategic plans play a critical role in the management of agency
operations. Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
makes clear that agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and
annual performance reports form the basis for a comprehensive and
integrated
approach to performance management.[Footnote 5] In the Board's case,
its performance management is augmented by an ongoing series of program
reviews of individual language services conducted each year[Footnote 6]
and an annual comparative review of all language services. Program
reviews are in-depth assessments of performance conducted by a team of
management, audience research experts, technical staff, and language
service staff. The comparative review of language services represents
an intensive 4-month review by the Board designed to evaluate the need
for adding or deleting language services and strategically reallocating
funds to the language services on the basis of priority and impact.
This year, the Board asked eight language services to prepare
individual performance plans that capture key elements of the Board's
new strategic approach to broadcasting, including the need to identify
a target audience and establish specific audience goals.[Footnote 7]
These performance plans will become the focus of future program reviews
and form the final link in a planned performance management system that
will integrate the Board's strategic plan, performance plan, annual
language service review, budget preparation process, and program
reviews into a unified whole. The strategic plan forms the heart of
this system since it should provide the performance goals and measures
that drive the Board's entire operations.
Projects Supporting War on Terrorism Adhere to Board's New Approach:
Consistent with the plan's theme of "marrying the mission to the
market," the Board has applied its new audience-focused broadcasting
approach to recent initiatives supporting the war on terrorism. The
first project under the new approach, Radio Sawa in the Middle East,
was launched in March 2002 using many of the modern, market-tested
broadcasting techniques and practices prescribed in the plan, in an
effort to attract a larger, younger population. Follow-on program
initiatives also adhere to the Board's modern approach to broadcasting,
though application is tailored to the specific circumstances of each
target market. These initiatives include the Afghanistan Radio Network
(ARN) and the new Radio Farda service to Iran. Estimated start-up and
recurring costs for these three projects through fiscal year 2003 total
about $116 million. As funds become available, there are plans to
extend application of the Board's new approach to other high-priority
markets, such as Indonesia. In addition, the Board hopes to further
expand its presence in the Middle East through the launch of a Middle
East Television Network. Future initiatives are expected to require
additional reallocation of funds and possible supplemental spending by
Congress.
Application Tailored to Market Circumstances:
The Board has tailored the use of its modern, audience-focused approach
to broadcasting, taking target audiences and market circumstances into
consideration when developing and implementing new program initiatives.
Table 1 provides a brief description of recently implemented projects
supporting the war on terrorism.
Table 1: The Board's Recently Implemented Initiatives:
Initiative: Radio Sawa; Launch date: March 2002; Project description: A
modern Arabic-language network that broadcasts music, news, and
information to young people in the Middle East via a combination of FM,
medium wave, short wave, digital audio satellite, and Internet
transmission resources. The network uses four 24-hour, seven-days-a-
week regional programming streams.[A].
Initiative: ARN; Launch date: August 2002; Project description: The
network combines the distinct news and information program content of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Radio Free Afghanistan[B] and VOA's
Dari and Pashtu language services into a closely coordinated, single
programming stream targeting the broad Afghani population. The network
currently broadcasts 24 hours, seven days a week on FM and the
Internet.
Initiative: Radio Farda; Launch date: December 2002; Project
description: Radio Farda integrates the distinct music, news, and
information content of VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty into a
single programming stream targeting youth in Iran. It broadcasts 24
hours a day, seven days a week via medium wave, digital audio
satellite, and the Internet. It also broadcasts 21 hours a day via
short wave.
Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.
[A] Radio Sawa's four programming streams are directed at Jordan,
Egypt, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf countries (i.e., Kuwait, Iraq, United
Arab Emirates, etc.) and reflect regional tastes and interests.
[B] Radio Free Afghanistan was launched by Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty in December 2001 in an effort to build a peaceful and
democratic Afghanistan. This service was congressionally authorized.
[End of table]
Radio Sawa:
The first program under the Board's new approach, Radio Sawa in the
Middle East, was launched using modern, market-tested broadcasting
techniques and practices, such as the extensive use of music formats,
to improve performance in this priority market and lend support to the
war on terrorism by targeting youth audiences. Although music remains a
large part of the programming on Radio Sawa, the proportion of news and
information to music is steadily increasing, peaking at 5-hours a day
during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Radio Sawa replaced the poorly
performing VOA Arabic service, which had listening rates at around 2
percent of the population. The Board has survey research indicating
that Radio Sawa is reaching 51 percent of its target audience and is
ranked highest for news and news trustworthiness in Amman, Jordan.
Despite such results, it remains unclear how many people Radio Sawa is
actually reaching throughout the Middle East because audience research
has been performed only in select markets and has not yet included
audiences in key markets like Saudi Arabia.
:
Afghanistan Radio Network:
The Afghanistan Radio Network was launched in August 2002 to more
effectively use and strengthen the impact of BBG broadcasting resources
targeted to Afghanistan, a key market for the war on terrorism. ARN
utilizes broadcasting concepts outlined in the Board's new strategic
approach, such as tailoring content to the target audience and
integrating programming streams across entities. Unlike Radio Sawa, ARN
is not primarily designed to reach a youth audience but a broader
Afghani audience. Programs are designed to be locally focused and are
high in educational, news, and information content. BBG service to
Afghanistan has in the past yielded some of the Board's highest
listening rates (in 1999 around 80 percent of adult male heads-of-
household). Recent BBG research indicates that the Board is reaching
about 45 percent of all male and female adults in the listening regions
of Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif.
Radio Farda:
Radio Farda was launched to strengthen the impact of BBG broadcasting
resources targeted to Iran, another key market for the war on
terrorism. Based on audience research and an analysis of specific
market factors in Iran, the Board tailored the plan's elements to Radio
Farda. Radio Farda uses modern broadcast techniques to attract a youth
target audience. Although it uses music formats, Radio Farda also
strives to provide substantial news and information. The Board claims
that increases in the volume of e-mail and phone calls from the region
indicate that the service is gaining popularity among the target
audience in Iran.
Other New Initiatives:
The Board is planning other program initiatives in support of the war
on terrorism, and plans indicate that the Board will selectively apply
its new broadcasting approach to these projects. Future initiatives
include enhancements to the VOA Indonesian and Urdu services and
creation of a Middle East Television Network, which represents the
single largest enhancement to the Board's operations in the coming
year. Still in the planning stages, the Middle East Television Network
will be an 18-to 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week, U.S.-controlled
satellite TV service presenting what the Board sees as American-style
news and information programs in the Arabic language to counter the
lack of depth and balance in the Middle Eastern media. As television is
the most important medium in the region for news and information, the
Board expects to significantly increase its audience size with this
initiative.
:
Projected Costs of the New Strategy Are Significant:
Certain elements of the Board's new plan will require substantial
levels of investments. Such elements include broadcasting round-the-
clock, using audience research and music formats extensively, and
reaching audiences on Board-controlled AM and FM frequencies. Other
elements do not require as substantial capital investments, such as
identifying target audiences and redesigning program content to appeal
to these audiences. Just as Radio Sawa, ARN, and Radio Farda
incorporate the Board's new broadcasting approach to varying degrees,
the Board has stated in its strategic plan that it will apply certain
high-cost elements of its new approach on a case-by-case basis. It
cannot afford to broadly apply all elements to all language services,
and some markets do not require such changes for U.S. international
broadcasting to remain competitive. Table 2 provides a cost summary of
recently implemented high-priority projects.
Table 2: Costs of BBG New Initiatives:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of BBG data.
N/A = Not applicable.
[End of table]
The estimated price tags for other priority initiatives, such as the
Middle East Television Network and the expansion of the VOA Indonesian
service, are also significant. For example, the Board estimates that it
will cost about $62 million to initiate the Middle East Television
Network and an additional $37 million annually for recurring
operational costs. Expanding VOA Indonesian radio and TV programming is
estimated to cost an additional $3.4 million. Cost estimates for the
VOA Urdu service program expansion are not yet available because the
Board has not finalized its plans for this project.
Some of the Board's recent priority projects have been funded in part
by reallocation of program funds under the Board's annual language
service review process. For example, the Board funded Radio Farda by
reprogramming more than $5.6 million in fiscal year 2003 funds and also
helped pay for Radio Sawa by reprogramming approximately $4.1 million
in fiscal year 2001 funds from other language services.
Effectiveness Is Difficult to Assess Absent Measurable Program
Objectives:
The Board's new approach to broadcasting is based on the need to reach
large audiences in priority markets, but its strategic plan does not
include a single goal or related program objective designed to gauge
progress toward increasing audience size. In addition, the plan's seven
existing strategic goals (for example, to employ modern communication
techniques or to revitalize efforts to tell America's story) are not
supported by measurable program objectives that would allow the Board
and others to gauge the agency's progress in implementing its strategic
goals.[Footnote 8] While the plan lacks a range of measurable program
objectives, key effectiveness measures that could be incorporated in
future versions of the Board's strategic plan include audience
awareness of U.S. broadcast efforts, audience perceptions of the
credibility of U.S. broadcasts, and whether VOA effectively presents
information about the United States and its policies to target
audiences. Efforts to assess the effectiveness of the Board's new
approach to broadcasting may also be hampered by the lack of details on
how the Board intends to implement each of its program objectives.
Missing from the plan are specifics on implementation strategies,
resource requirements, and project time frames.[Footnote 9] The Board
has acknowledged that
its strategic plan needs to be significantly improved, and major
changes are planned for the next iteration.[Footnote 10]
Plan Lacks Focus on Audience Size and Other Measurable Program
Objectives:
The absence of "audience size" as a strategic goal and related
measurable program objectives represents one of the most significant
oversights in the Board's strategic plan. The strategic plan references
the importance of reaching a large audience in priority markets as the
key driver behind the Board's new approach to broadcasting and notes
that audience size is the most readily available and accurate impact
measure it has. Despite the central importance of audience size to the
Board's new approach to broadcasting, the plan is silent on how these
data should be incorporated as a measurable program objective or series
of program objectives to gauge the Board's effectiveness in this key
area. The Board has traditionally reported audience size in its annual
performance plan; however, this reporting lacks any contextual meaning
since it is not tied to a program objective(s) defining the Board's
multiyear vision for what it would like to accomplish in this area. In
addition, the Board's practice of reporting audience size goals and
accomplishments at the entity level in its annual performance plan
obscured important performance data at the regional and language
service level.
We also found that the plan's existing strategic goals are not
supported by measurable program objectives. The strategic plan has 17
program objectives,[Footnote 11] any of which can be used to illustrate
the lack of performance goals and expectations. For example, under the
goal of employing modern communication techniques and technologies, one
objective is to accelerate multimedia development and infuse more
television and Internet into the mix. The Board's plan only makes broad
assertions about the need to "do more with TV where market realities
demand and resources permit" and that the Board "will ensure that all
entities have world-class Internet presences.":
Under the goal of progressively building out the U.S. international
broadcasting system, the Board lists the successful launch of Radio
Sawa as a program objective. Again, the plan makes broad statements
about the need to attract and build a significant audience in the
Middle East and present news that is objective, comprehensive, fresh,
and relevant. However, it does not provide details on expected
performance levels. Specifically, the plan does not establish short-or
long-range target audience figures for the Gaza strip, West Bank, and
17 countries in the Middle East and Africa to which Radio Sawa will
eventually broadcast.
A Range of Effectiveness Measures Could Be Incorporated in the Board's
Plan:
Our survey of senior program managers across all broadcast entities and
discussions with other program staff and outside parties, suggested a
number of other effectiveness measures the Board could incorporate when
developing measurable program objectives designed to support the plan's
strategic goals.[Footnote 12] These measures include audience
awareness; broadcast entity credibility; and a measure of VOA's ability
to communicate a balanced and comprehensive projection of American
thought, institutions, and policies so that audiences receive,
understand, and retain this information.
Audience Awareness:
The strategic plan does not include a measure of audience awareness to
answer a second key question of effectiveness: whether target audiences
are even aware of U.S. international broadcasting programming available
in their area. Board officials have stated that such measures would
help the Board understand a key factor in audience share rates and what
could be done to address audience share deficiencies. The Board could
develop this measure since it already collects information on language
service awareness levels in its audience research and in national
surveys for internal use.
Broadcaster Credibility:
The strategic plan does not include a measure of broadcaster
credibility, which can identify whether target audiences believe what
they hear. Reaching a large listening or viewing audience is of little
use if audiences largely discount the news and information portions of
broadcasts. Our survey of senior program managers and discussions with
BBG staff and outside groups all point to the possibility that U.S.
broadcasters (VOA in particular) suffer from a credibility problem with
foreign audiences, who may view VOA and other broadcasters as biased
sources of information. InterMedia, the Board's audience research
contractor, told the Board that it is working on a credibility index
for another customer that could be adapted to meet the Board's needs
which, when segmented by language service, would reveal whether there
are significant perception problems among key target audiences.
However, to develop this measure, the Board would need to add several
questions to its national survey instruments.
Measure of VOA Mission Effectiveness:
Finally, the strategic plan does not include a measure of whether
target audiences hear, understand, and retain information broadcast by
VOA on American thought, institutions, and policies. The unique value-
added component of VOA's broadcasting mission is its focus on issues
and information concerning the United States, our system of government,
and the rationale behind U.S. policy decisions. Tracking and reporting
these data are important to determining whether VOA is accomplishing
its mission. InterMedia officials noted that developing a measure of
this sort is feasible and requires developing appropriate quantitative
and qualitative questions to include in the Board's ongoing research
activities.
Plan Lacks Specifics on Implementation Strategies, Resource Needs, and
Project Time Frames:
We found that each of the plan's program objectives lacked a detailed
description of implementation strategies, resource needs, and project
time frames. Typically, each program objective consists of an overview
of the problem followed by a general assertion that operations must be
improved. For example, the "action plan" for the accelerated use of
television and the Internet is limited to the following statements:
* "Appropriate Television - VOA has seen significant audience impact in
several key markets through television broadcasts--the Balkans, Iran,
and Indonesia. We can and will do more with TV where market realities
demand this and where resources permit. The first step is to cement the
establishment of VOA-TV from the former Worldnet.
* Higher Quality Web Presence - We have seen spotty progress towards
the goal of having all language services create high quality news-
oriented websites. Some are outstanding. The content of others is thin
and visually uninteresting. Bottom line: We will ensure that all
entities have world-class Internet presences.":
This level of planning begs key questions such as:
* What is the overall strategy for implementing the enhanced use of
television and the Internet? Who will be responsible for implementing
the component parts of the strategy? How much will it cost? How long
will it take to implement?
* How will the Board manage workforce planning issues such as
transitioning staff from radio-based skills to the skill set required
to significantly augment the Board's multimedia operations?
* How will the long-planned merger of VOA Television and WorldNet
impact the Board's strategic approach to television?
* How will the Middle East Television Network factor into the Board's
plans and what are the resource, staffing, and training implications of
this proposed network?
Answers to such questions will provide the Board, BBG managers, OMB,
and the Congress with specific information needed to manage ongoing
program implementation and assess progress against meaningful short-and
long-term criteria. This level of planning also will reveal any
potential gaps or inconsistencies in planned implementation steps
across the Board's many program objectives.
Board Plans to Address Many Challenges, but Scope of Operations May
Limit Its Impact:
The key strategic challenge the Board faces is how to achieve large
audiences in priority markets while dealing with (1) a collection of
outdated and noncompetitive language services, (2) a disparate
organizational structure consisting of seven separate broadcast
entities and a mix of federal agency and grantee organizations that are
managed by a part-time Board of Governors, and (3) the resource
challenge of broadcasting in 97 language services to more than 125
broadcast markets worldwide. The plan does address the challenge of
revamping its current broadcast operations by identifying a number of
solutions to the competitive challenges the Board faces. It also
provides a new organizational model for U.S. international broadcasting
that stresses the need to view the broadcast efforts of the separate
entities as part of a "single system" under the Board's direct control
and authority. The Board has stated that it cannot sustain all its
current broadcast operations and have the desired impact in high
priority markets at the same time. Despite a clear articulation of U.S.
international broadcasting's resource challenges, the Board and
Congress have not been able to substantially reduce the total number of
language services or a reported 55 percent overlap in VOA and surrogate
language services.
Board Has Identified Solutions to Market Challenges:
The Board's strategic plan does an adequate job of identifying the
market challenges for U.S. international broadcasters and potential
solutions to these challenges. The task of reaching a significant
audience today is a far different proposition than reaching an audience
a decade ago. Priority markets have multiplied and media environments
have advanced virtually everywhere with an explosion of local radio and
television outlets that compete aggressively for audience share.
Broadcast and computer technologies have made quantum leaps, with
satellite television and the Internet becoming preferred information
modes for millions. The Board has concluded that because many people
can now pick and choose their information sources, U.S. international
broadcast operations must be improved to remain competitive in a new
media environment.
The Board's strategic plan includes a frank assessment of the market
challenges that must be addressed to make U.S. international
broadcasting more competitive. These challenges include:
* Branding and positioning. Language services lack a distinctive
contemporary identity and a unique reason for listeners or viewers to
tune in.
* Target audiences. Few language services have identified their target
audience--a key first step in developing a broadcast strategy.
* Formats and programs. Many language services have outmoded formats
and programs with an antiquated, even Cold War, sound and style.
* Delivery and placement. Three-quarters of transmitted hours have poor
or fair signal quality, and affiliate broadcaster strategies have
stressed quantity over quality.
* Marketing and promotion. Audience awareness levels are low across the
world and audiences often do not know where to tune in or what to
expect once they do.
* Technology. The Board is not maximizing the use of multimedia to
reach audiences, stimulate real-time interaction, and cross-promote
broadcast products.
These challenges are addressed by a number of proposed solutions in the
form of strategic goals and program objectives listed in the plan. With
regards to the marketing challenges, 12 of the 17 program objectives
are designed to directly or indirectly overcome these challenges. For
example, the Board's strategic goal of employing modern communication
techniques and technologies is supported by the following program
objectives:
* accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and
Internet into the mix;
* adopt modern radio principles and practices including the matching of
program formats to target audiences;
* control the distribution channels that audiences use;
* go local in content and presence;
* tailor content to audiences; and:
* drive innovation and performance with research.
Full implementation of these and other solutions to market challenges
in high priority markets will depend on available resources, which in
turn will be driven in part by the Board's effectiveness in addressing
its organizational and resource challenges.
Plan Proposes a "Single System" for Broadcasting and Increased
Leadership for the Board:
The plan identifies a number of internal challenges or obstacles which,
if not addressed and corrected, will hamper the Board's ability to
effectively implement its new strategic approach to broadcasting.
First, the Board believes that it needs to do more to consolidate and
rationalize its organizational structure to better leverage existing
resources and generate greater program impact in priority markets. As
the strategic plan notes, "the diversity of the BBG--diverse
organizations with different missions, different frameworks, and
different constituencies--makes it a challenge to bring all the
separate parts together in a more effective whole." Second, the Board
believes that it must clarify the respective roles and responsibilities
of the Board, the IBB, and the broadcast entities to ensure that a
rational management process is in place and that internal
communications flow in a logical manner.[Footnote 13]
The Board's response to these internal challenges is largely contained
in the two program objectives listed under the strategic goal of
designing a broadcast architecture for the 21st century. The first
program objective is to create a unified broadcasting system by
treating the component parts of U.S. international broadcasting as a
single system. This is an important distinction since it places the
Board in the position of actively managing resources across broadcast
entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A good example of this
strategy in action is Radio Farda, which draws on the unique content of
VOA's Persian service and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Persian
service to create a new broadcast product for the Iranian market. Board
officials acknowledge that the new single system approach will take
years to implement throughout the BBG and require hands-on management
by the entire Board to ensure that resources are adequately managed
across entities. Also, the Board's experience with implementing Radio
Sawa suggests that it can be difficult to make disparate broadcast
entities work toward a common purpose. For example, Board members and
senior planners said they encountered significant difficulties
attempting to work with VOA officials to launch Radio Sawa and there
are now plans to constitute Radio Sawa as a separate grantee
organization. While this move is understandable under the
circumstances, it also contributes to the further "balkanization" of
U.S. international broadcasting.
The second program objective consists of realigning the BBG's
organizational structure. This objective highlights the need to
reinforce the Board's role as CEO and to reaffirm the IBB's role as
central provider of transmission and local placement services. The plan
notes that by law the Board is the head of the agency with a host of
nondelegable responsibilities including taking the lead role in shaping
the BBG's overall strategic direction, setting expectations and
standards, and creating the context for innovation and change. As it
consolidates its role as the collective CEO for U.S. international
broadcasting, the Board will seek to create better and stronger
linkages among entities, uniting them in a common purpose and program.
At the same time, the Board plans to assume the role of helping the
broadcasting organizations develop radio formats to package and better
present the broadcasters' content. According to the plan, this becomes
a major responsibility, as professional formatting is vital to the
BBG's competitiveness and effectiveness.
Plan Does Not Discuss Several Organizational Options:
We found significant support among BBG staff and outside experts we
interviewed and surveyed for a select number of solutions not included
in the Board's plan. However, these are complex issues that deserve
detailed review and careful weighing of the pros and cons. Implementing
these solutions is largely beyond the Board's control. However, the
Board can play a key role in identifying and endorsing creative
solutions for Congress to consider if the Board's planned solutions to
organizational and leadership challenges falter and are ineffective. A
list of these options is offered for informational purposes and as a
reference point for the Board, OMB, and Congress in pursuing solutions
to acknowledged operating challenges. (See app. II for relevant survey
responses we received from senior program managers.) Table 3 summarizes
the Board's planned action compared with these potential alternatives.
Table 3: Planned Actions and Additional Options:
Planned action: "Single system" approach to broadcasting; Potential
alternatives: Consider whether U.S. international broadcasting should
be consolidated into a single entity to streamline and rationalize
operations. (See survey question 20.1.).
Planned action: Reinforce the Board's role as CEO; Potential
alternatives: Consider whether a full-time CEO or Chief Operating
Officer (COO) for international broadcasting is needed to manage day-
to-day operations that may put too great a stress on a part-time Board.
In either case, it is presumed that the Board would have direct hire
and fire authority over such a position.[A,B] (See survey question
20.2.).
Planned action: Reinforce the IBB's central support role; Potential
alternatives: Consider an alternative to the current support services
arrangement giving VOA, Radio/TV Marti, and WorldNet the same
flexibility as grantees to manage their nontransmission support
services. Grantee organizations (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and
Radio Free Asia) directly control most nontransmission support services
such as affiliate relations, marketing, and computer services. In
contrast, nontransmission support services for VOA, Radio/TV Marti, and
WorldNet were largely consolidated within the IBB as part of the 1994
International Broadcasting Act. (See survey question 4.3.).
Planned action: No parallel action; Potential alternatives: Consider
whether VOA, the IBB, and Radio/TV Marti should be reconstituted as
grantees to place them on the same footing as the surrogate
broadcasters, who enjoy more liberal workforce rules and fewer
restrictions. It has been argued that the flexible environment grantees
have is more conducive to a fast-paced business such as broadcasting.
(See survey questions 20.8 and 20.9.).
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Certain Board members and senior BBG planners view this option as
problematic given the perception that attracting talented individuals
to serve on the Board is dependent, in part, on the Board having a
central and unambiguous role in managing the operations of U.S.
international broadcasting.
[B] The utility of appointing federal agency COOs was recently explored
at a roundtable of senior private and public sector executives
sponsored by GAO. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highlights of a
GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A Potential
Strategy to Address Federal Governance Challenges, GAO-03-192SP
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2002).
[End of table]
Plan Does Not Directly Address the Board's Scope of Operations:
The Board has concluded that if U.S. international broadcasting is to
become a vital component of U.S. foreign policy, it must focus on a
clear set of broadcast priorities. Trying to do too much at the same
time fractures this focus, extends the span of control beyond
management capabilities, and siphons off precious resources. The Board
has determined that current efforts to support its broadcast languages
are "unsustainable" with current resources given its desire to increase
impact in high priority markets. Currently, the Board broadcasts in 66
languages, through 97 language services (resulting from a 55 percent
overlap between VOA and surrogate language services) to more than 125
markets worldwide. The plan notes, "it is a daunting challenge to
obtain the impact the Board desires across all its language services
given what is essential to spend in high priority services.":
Despite this recognition, the plan fails to answer such questions as,
when is it appropriate to broadcast VOA and surrogate programming in
the same language, and what level of duplication in roles and target
audiences should be allowed between VOA and surrogate broadcasters.
These types of questions have been raised before. For example, in our
September 1996 review of options for addressing possible budget
reductions at the U.S. Information Agency, we concluded that any
substantial reduction in funding for U.S. international broadcasting
would require major changes in the number of language services and
broadcast hours.[Footnote 14] Our report noted that the BBG planned to
extensively review its language services to determine their continued
need and effectiveness. Our September 2000 report on U.S. international
broadcasting noted that the Board concluded it was essential to revisit
the issue of broadcast overlap between VOA and the surrogate services
in light of evolving foreign policy, geopolitical, and budget realities
in the new century.[Footnote 15] Finally, the Board considered the
issue of role and target audience duplication among VOA and surrogate
broadcasts in a July 2000 language service analysis, which sought to
identify where broadcast services shared similar roles (that is, to
supply international/regional news, local news, information on American
policies and perspectives, etc.) and the same target audiences (that
is, elites, mass, youth, women, and diaspora). This analysis confirmed
that surrogate broadcasters, consistent with their mission, carry
substantially more local content than VOA. Likewise, the analysis
confirmed that VOA alone provides news and information on what the
Board labeled the "American political perspective." However, the
Board's analysis also revealed that a significant degree of overlap
existed in other content areas (such as "political/democracy building")
and in target audiences between VOA and the surrogates.
Reducing the Number of Language Services and Broadcast Overlap Has
Broad Support:
Our survey of senior program managers revealed that the majority
supported significantly reducing the total number of language services
and the overlap in services between VOA and the surrogate
broadcasters.[Footnote 16] Eighteen of 24 respondents said that too
many language services are offered, and when asked how many countries
should have more than one U.S. international broadcaster providing
service in the same language, 23 of 28 respondents said this should
occur in only a few countries or no countries at all. Finally, when we
asked respondents what impact a significant reduction in language
services (for the purpose of reprogramming funds to higher priority
services) would have, 18 of 28 respondents said that this would have a
generally positive to highly positive impact.
The BBG's annual language service review process addresses the need to
delete or add languages. The process prioritizes individual language
services based on such factors as U.S. strategic interests, political
freedom, and press freedom data. Such assessments have been used in an
attempt to shift the focus of U.S. international broadcasting away from
central and eastern Europe to allow greater emphasis on Russia and
Eurasia; central and South Asia; China and east Asia; Africa; and
selected countries in our hemisphere such as Colombia, Cuba, and Haiti.
This system has been used to re-deploy resources within the BBG. For
example, the Board has reallocated more than $9 million through the
elimination or reduction of language services since its first language
service review in January 2000. In total, the Board has eliminated 3
language services[Footnote 17] and reduced the
scope-of-operations of another 25 services since January 2000.[Footnote
18] In terms of the total number of language services, the Board had 91
language services when it concluded its first language service review
and 97 language services at the conclusion of this year's review.
Congress has contributed to this situation by authorizing additional
language services over the years. However, the Board, through its
required annual language service review and strategic plan, is
responsible for analyzing, recommending, and implementing a more
efficient and economical scope of operations for U.S. international
broadcasting.
Conclusions:
The Broadcasting Board of Governors' strategic plan embodies, defines,
and guides the Board's new approach to U.S. international broadcasting,
which aims to dramatically increase the size of listening and viewing
audiences in markets of U.S. strategic interest while focusing on the
war on terrorism. Early initiatives such as Radio Sawa, Radio Free
Afghanistan, and Radio Farda represent the first wave of projects
incorporating, to varying degrees, the market-driven techniques on
which the Board's new approach to broadcasting are based. Effective
implementation of the Board's new approach to broadcasting rests, in
part, on a rigorous plan that reflects the Board's best strategic
thinking on a host of critical issues. However, the Board's plan lacks
measurable program objectives, detailed implementation strategies,
resource needs, and project time frames. We identified a number of key
areas that could provide a starting point for developing multiyear
program objectives that focus on the Board's actual effectiveness.
These measures include audience size by language service, audience
awareness, broadcaster credibility, and whether VOA effectively
presents information about U.S. thought, institutions, and policies to
target audiences. Implementation of these and other program objectives
could be tracked through a related set of performance goals and
indicators in the Board's annual performance plan. The Board has
identified a number of market and internal challenges and proposed
solutions to address them. If the Board falters in its efforts to
correct some significant organizational challenges, a number of
alternative solutions do exist. Finally, the Board needs to evaluate
how many language services it can effectively carry and what level of
overlap and duplication in VOA and surrogate broadcast services is
appropriate. Resolving these key questions will have significant
resource implications for the Board and its ability to reach large
audiences in markets of priority interest to the United States.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve overall management of U.S. international broadcast
operations and maximize their impact on U.S. public diplomacy efforts,
we recommend that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors:
* revise the BBG's 5-year strategic plan to include measurable program
objectives, implementation strategies, resource requirements, and
project time frames;
* include audience size, audience awareness, broadcaster credibility,
and VOA mission effectiveness as measurable program objectives in the
strategic plan;
* revise the BBG's annual performance plan to include performance goals
and indicators that track the Board's progress in implementing the
multiyear program objectives established in the Board's revised
strategic plan; and:
* revise the Board's strategic plan to include a clear vision of the
Board's intended scope-of-operations and the appropriate level of
overlap and duplication between VOA and surrogate language services.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a
draft of this report. The Board stated that overall our report is fair
and accurate and it largely concurred with our report recommendations.
The Board noted that it intends to create a new strategic goal (that
is, maximizing impact in priority areas) and recast the plan's seven
existing strategic goals as operational goals that would support the
Board's single strategic goal. These operational goals would be
descriptive in nature and generally not measured directly. However, the
Board intends to develop measurable multiyear program objectives and
related performance indicators under its new strategic goal that will
be tracked on an annual basis through the BBG's performance plan. The
Board's response notes that possible performance indicators include
audience reach, share, awareness, credibility, programming quality,
mission, added-value, and delivery. Finally, the Board noted that it is
currently undertaking an in-depth assessment of the utility and
practicality of integrating overlapping language services and expects
to include this assessment in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission.
We believe these planned actions are significant and if fully
implemented should materially improve the Board's performance
management process and provide OMB and Congress with more meaningful
data on the actual impact of Board activities.
The comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix IV. The
Board also provided technical comments which we have incorporated in
the report as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology:
To obtain comparative information on all our objectives, we conducted
fieldwork in the United Kingdom and Germany. We met with foreign
ministry officials in London and Berlin to discuss their approaches to
public diplomacy. We also met with broadcasting officials from the
British Broadcasting Corporation in London and Deutsche Welle officials
in Cologne and Berlin to discuss their respective approaches to
international broadcasting.
To examine the status of the BBG's new strategic approach, we conducted
interviews with Board members and senior managers from the broadcast
entities including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty officials in Prague.
We also reviewed the Board's new 5-year strategic plan titled "Marrying
the Mission to the Market" as well as other agency documentation,
including entity mission statements and budget requests.
To identify how the Board plans to measure the effectiveness of its new
strategic approach, we reviewed current performance management
documentation, such as language service and program review documents,
audience research summaries, and annual performance plans and reports.
We also met with Board officials and with several private sector
audience research firms to discuss a range of performance management
and measurement issues.
To obtain information on various challenges the Board faces in
executing its new strategy, and to identify program options for
overcoming key challenges, we administered a survey to 34 senior
program managers across the 5 broadcast entities in existence at the
time our survey was implemented. We also conducted interviews with
Board members and the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs at the Department of State.
We conducted our work from May 2002 through April 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested members of
Congress, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the
Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to other parties
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge
on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.
Jess T. Ford
Director,
International Affairs and Trade:
Signed by Jess T. Ford:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Challenges Facing U.S. International Broadcasting:
The Board's strategic plan provides both a candid assessment of the
challenges facing U.S. international broadcasting and a series of
proposed solutions to address these challenges in the form of strategic
goals and related program objectives. Table 4 is an overview of each
challenge described in the Board's strategic plan. Table 5 is a list of
the proposed solutions the Board identified.
Table 4: Board-Identified Challenges:
Challenge: Marketing:
Challenge: Branding and positioning; Description from strategic plan:
Many BBG broadcasters lack a distinctive contemporary identity.
Challenge: Target audiences; Description from strategic plan:
Identifying a target audience is essential to a broadcasting strategy-
-yet only a few BBG language services have set targets.
Challenge: Formats and programs; Description from strategic plan: The
formats and programs of too many BBG language services are outmoded.
Challenge: Delivery and placement; Description from strategic plan:
Broadcasts are frequently hampered by poor audibility. Placement, where
available, is sometimes hindered by poor partner station choices with
poor broadcast times.
Challenge: Marketing and promotion; Description from strategic plan:
Audience awareness of BBG programs is generally low across the world.
Challenge: Technology; Description from strategic plan: The BBG must
use multimedia to its advantage. While radio is the backbone, TV is
usually dominant and there has been substantial growth in Internet use
in many markets.
Challenge: Internal:
Challenge: Consolidate and rationalize the overall enterprise;
Description from strategic plan: The diversity of the BBG--
organizations with different missions, different frameworks, and
different constituencies--makes it hard to bring all the separate parts
together into a more effective whole. Fifty-five percent of VOA's
language services overlap with the surrogates, presenting a chronic
resource allocation challenge for the Board.
Challenge: Roles and responsibilities; Description from strategic plan:
Since its inception, the Board has worked to sort out the respective
roles and responsibilities of the BBG, the IBB, and the broadcasters.
Challenge: Resource allocation; Description from strategic plan:
Appropriate performance measures are needed to establish a direct link
between performance and budget. Language service review has made great
strides in this area for the broadcast language services; however, the
Board now needs to broaden this exercise to encompass support elements
as well.
Challenge: New requirements to ensure market competitiveness;
Description from strategic plan: The Board will need substantial new
budget outlays to fund a variety of requirements including the
strengthening of multimedia programming, conducting research, carrying
out marketing and promotion efforts, and securing language-qualified
staff.
Challenge: Journalistically independent, yet a government agency;
Description from strategic plan: The BBG must work with other federal
agencies to ensure the level of diplomatic and other types of support
needed to function effectively.
Source: BBG strategic plan.
[End of table]
Table 5: Proposed SolutionsæStrategic Goals and Objectives:
Goal I - Design a broadcasting architecture for the future.: * Create a
worldwide U.S. international broadcasting system.; * Realign the BBG
organizational structure.
Goal II -Expand the U.S. international broadcasting system through
regional networks and single-country priority initiatives.
Goal II - Design a broadcasting architecture for the future.: * Launch
the Middle East Radio Network and make it a success.; * Harmonize Radio
Free Afghanistan and VOA into the Afghanistan Radio Network.; * Pioneer
anti-terrorism broadcasting.; * Reach the two continental giants:
Russia and China.
Goal III - Employ modern communication techniques and technologies.
* Accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and
Internet into the mix.; * Adopt modern radio principles and practices
such as matching program formats to target audiences.; * Control the
distribution channels that audiences use.; * Go local in content and
presence.; * Tailor content to the audience.; * Drive innovation and
performance with research.
Goal IV -
Preserve our most precious commodity--credibility--and ensure overall
programming excellence.
* Maintain the firewall.[A]; * Update and enforce journalism
standards.; * Perform periodic program reviews of all language services.
Goal V - Revitalize "Telling America's Story" to the world.
* Be a
model of a free press and democracy in action.; * Concentrate on those
aspects of America that research indicates are of interest to target
audiences.; * Present targeted editorials that are relevant to local
and regional concerns.; * Use formats, presentation techniques, and on-
air presence that will appeal to audiences.; * Maximize interactive use
of the Internet as a ready reference source for presidential speeches
and other vital documents.
Goal VI - Shore up surge capacity.
* Upgrade
existing shortwave transmitter and support systems to ensure backbone
of U.S. surge capability.; * Develop a rapid-response capability--low
power, portable AM and FM.
Goal VII - Ensure broad federal support.
* No associated program objective.
Source: BBG strategic plan.
[A] The term "firewall" refers to the Board's independent status in
separating and protecting the professional independence and integrity
of U.S. international broadcast elements from the policy-making
institutions in the U.S. government's foreign affairs community.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey Development:
To determine senior managers' views of current operations, obtain
information on the challenges associated with U.S. international
broadcasting, and obtain information on the expected impacts of the
BBG's new "Marrying the Mission to the Market" initiative, we conducted
a survey of these managers. Our survey questionnaire was administered
from January 15 to March 11, 2003, to the directors, program-related
managers, and regional language chiefs at the five BBG broadcasting
entities in existence at the time our survey was implemented.
The questionnaire was developed between September 2002 and January 2003
by social science survey specialists and other individuals who were
knowledgeable about international broadcasting issues. In late October,
we obtained an external expert review of the questionnaire from
InterMedia, a private consulting group that conducts research into
international broadcasting issues. We also obtained a series of
comments and feedback from key Board planners and staff in November and
December 2002.
We pretested the questionnaire in December 2002 with four senior
managers of BBG broadcasting entities to ensure that the questionnaire
was clear, unambiguous, and unbiased. Initially, we had considered
surveying a broader section of managers of BBG broadcasting entities,
such as language service chiefs and managers of support services.
However, after conducting the pretests, we concluded that our questions
were appropriate only for directors, program-related managers, and
regional language chiefs. In addition, we decided that it would be
inappropriate to survey members of the Board of Governors because many
of the questions asked about decisions and strategies for which they
were directly responsible.
We developed our study population of top managers, program-related
managers, and regional language chiefs based on information that the
BBG provided and input from BBG management. In those instances where
managers had taken office during or after the time period to be
evaluated in our survey (Oct. 1, 2001, through Sept. 30, 2002), we also
surveyed their predecessors. In all, we sent the survey to the 34
individuals we identified as our study population and received 30
responses, resulting in an 88 percent response rate. All data from the
completed surveys were double-keyed and verified during data entry.
The results of our closed-ended questions to our survey are provided in
appendix III.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Survey of Program Managers of U.S. International
Broadcasting Entities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors:
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON Chairman:
June 27, 2003:
Mr. Jess T. Ford
Associate Director
International relations and Trade Issues
General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Ford:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report, "U.S.
International Broadcasting, New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching
Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives."
In responding to it, let me first note that we have been
impressed by the professionalism and the constructive spirit with
which the GAO conducted this review. We believe that as the
Broadcasting Board of Governors reshapes U.S. international
broadcasting to meet the quickly
changing needs of the 21st century and specifically, needs
imposed by the War on Terror, we have both a proud story to tell and
room to improve. The draft report captures this. I am sure this
organization will benefit from having gone through
the review and from the openness that both sides displayed.
Overall, we consider the report to be fair and accurate in its
description of the Board's strategic initiatives. We do, however, find
it somewhat unbalanced in its seeming over-emphasis on criticism of the
Strategic Plan's degree of conformance to the documentation norms of
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). Ours is a
journalistic organization. We believe in the power of clear speaking,
and that is what the BBG Strategic Plan does. The document shows where
we want to go and why and how we will get there. More detailed comments
on these points are attached.
We appreciate that GAO has spelled out some options for future
directions. To the report's suggestions on how best to manage day-to-
day operations in U.S. international broadcasting, we would add that
the Board needs to retain its own staff and chief of staff to ensure
the integrity of its oversight role.
We concur in varying degrees with GAO's recommendations:
1) "Revise the BBG's 5 -year strategic plan to include measurable
program objectives, implementation strategies, resource requirements
and project time frames. ":
Comments: Concur, with reservations. Our strategic plan maps out the
future directions of a young agency that is largely remaking itself to
meet rapidly changing conditions overseas. The variables with which we
must contend are many and often unpredictable. As a result, our
document is a framework and in GPRA terms it does not always have
numerical specificity. Yet its thrust is clear. That said, we believe
that we can make our Strategic Plan GPRA-compliant by subordinating the
existing goals to a single restated Strategic Goal, with supporting
effectiveness measures, and linking these to the performance plan.
Developing and fine-tuning these new measures will take some time, but
the general idea of what we envision is spelled out in Appendix B.
To the extent that the constantly changing requirements of
international conditions and the need to reallocate funds from existing
programs to fund new higher priorities permit, we will codify this in
the strategic plan. We remind that unlike virtually every other federal
agency, the automatic corrective that governs our strategic planning
process is the annual language review, mandated by law. It is heavily
research-driven. (Appendix A):
2) "Include audience size, audience awareness, broadcaster credibility
and VOA mission effectiveness as measurable program objectives in the
strategic plan. ":
Comments: Concur in the main. Audience size will be inculcated into the
plan as one of a number of effectiveness measures which support a new
overarching Strategic Goal - "Maximize impact in priority areas with
high-quality programming consistent with mission." As we have noted
elsewhere in this response, credibility and VOA mission effectiveness
are integral components of the existing programming quality performance
indicator in the annual performance plan. We will make this more
explicit to the readers of the strategic and annual plans (Appendix A).
We will examine audience awareness as a possible indicator, but we
believe that by itself it is not directly a broadcasting impact
measure, but rather a subordinate outcome indicator for marketing and
program placement operations. It may be most useful as part of a ratio.
(Appendix B) Broadcaster credibility and VOA mission effectiveness will
be looked at carefully. They make sense on their face, but the
difficulty is in getting reliable data on which to base them.
3) "Revise the BBG's annual performance plan to include performance
goals and indicators that track the Board's progress in implementing
the multiyear program objectives established in the Board's revised
strategic plan. ":
Comments: Concur.
4) "Revise the Board's strategic plan to include a clear vision of the
Board's intended scope of operations regarding the total number of
language services and the appropriate level of overlap and duplication
between VOA and surrogate language services. ":
Comments: Concur, but with clarifications. First, the Board does not
accept the premise that there are "duplicate" services. While VOA and
RFE/RL or RFA broadcast in some of the same languages (i.e., they
overlap), the missions and program philosophies remain distinct.
Certainly there are degrees of separation, and combining services in
some cases makes sense. Not every market requires the same mix of
services. The Strategic Plan states clearly the Board's philosophy of
creating single-country and regional networks, and combining existing
overlap services in ways that will increase the overall impact of each
("making 2+2=5"). The Board is currently undertaking an in-depth
assessment of the utility/practicality of integrating current overlap
language services and expects to forward the findings of this
assessment as part of the FY 2005 budget submission. We anticipate that
whatever the results might be, actual implementation would be phased in
over a period of up to two years. That said, we must note that it is
impractical to state in the Strategic Plan a target total number of
language services. There is no fixed number, since international
conditions, legislative mandates, and resultant language priorities
change each year. The Board believes that the current examination,
described above, together with the annual language review process and
its engine, a freshly produced, research-driven set of broadcast
priorities, will best guide.
We also have some specific comments on and corrections to the Report.
Please consider our full response.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please let me know if
we can provide any further information.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Y. Tomlinson
Chairman:
Signed by Kenneth Y. Tomlinson:
Attachment: Comments on GAO Draft Report and Notes on Text Appendix A:
Restated Strategic and Operational Goals:
Appendix B: Developing Further Indicators To Measure The Impact Of U.S.
International Broadcasting:
Appendix C: Brief Description of the BBG Programming Quality Index:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Diana Glod (202) 512-8945.
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Melissa
Pickworth, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to this report.
Martin De Alteriis and Ernie Jackson also provided technical
assistance.
(320159):
:
FOOTNOTES
[1] Congress created the BBG when it passed the United States
International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (title III of P.L. 103-236),
which sought to reorganize and consolidate U.S. international
broadcasting efforts in light of the end of the Cold War and
administrative efforts to meet deficit reduction targets. The Board is
composed of nine voting members. Eight members are appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate for 3-year terms. The ninth
member of the Board is the Secretary of State. Under the Foreign
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277), the BBG
was removed from the U.S. Information Agency and established as an
independent entity.
[2] The IBB currently provides transmission services to all U.S.
broadcast operations. It also provides management oversight and support
services such as audience research and marketing to VOA, WorldNet
Television, and Radio/TV Marti.
[3] VOA also serves as a surrogate broadcaster in information-deprived
countries in Africa since Congress has not established a separate
surrogate entity for this region.
[4] One of the Board's key objectives is to provide support to the war
on terrorism through anti-terrorism broadcasting. The Board views
recent initiatives in the Middle East, such as Radio Sawa, as examples
of its new approach and as a major initiative supporting the war on
terrorism.
[5] OMB guidance notes that agency strategic plans may include
multiyear strategic goals that are not subject to direct measurement.
However, these goals must be supported by measurable program objectives
that provide a long-term basis for assessing whether an agency's
strategic goals are being met. Annual progress toward achieving agency
program objectives should be tracked through the performance goals and
indicators in an agency's performance plan under the Government
Performance and Results Act. See Circular No. A-11, Part 6, Preparation
and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual
Program Performance Reports; Office of Management and Budget
(Washington, D.C.: June 2002).
[6] These two components of the Board's performance management system
were addressed in detail in our last report on U.S. international
broadcasting. U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. International
Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and Performance Management System
Could be Improved, GAO/NSIAD-00-222 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2000).
[7] These languages fall in the Near East Asia and South Asia region
targeted for evaluation as part of OMB's new Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) exercise, which is designed to support the budget and
performance integration component of the President's Management Agenda.
Under the PART process, approximately 20 percent of agency programs
were supposed to be covered during the formulation of the fiscal year
2004 budget, with other programs to be annually added to the assessment
in future years.
[8] Our observations on these missing elements are mirrored in OMB's
summary report on this year's implementation of the Program Assessment
Rating Tool. OMB's report in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
request notes that "the [BBG] program scored poorly in strategic
planning, primarily because the long-term and annual goals are vague
and do not include time frames and measurable targets."
[9] These findings mirror several of the observations we made in GAO/
NSIAD-00-222.
[10] We recently reported that a "program logic model" can help
information dissemination agencies systematically identify their
program activities, inputs, outputs, outcomes, and program impact. By
specifying what is expected at each step, a logic model can help
agencies define the most appropriate set of program goals and measures.
As such, the model could be used by the Board as a tool to help prepare
its next iteration of the strategic plan. See U.S. General Accounting
Office, Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information
Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals, GAO-02-923 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 30, 2002).
[11] See appendix I for a list of the Board's strategic goals and
program objectives.
[12] These measures represent a starting point, since each strategic
goal in the plan needs to be supported by measurable program
objectives. Once strategic goals are lined up with measurable program
objectives, a related set of performance goals and indicators should be
included in the Board's performance plan to track annual progress
toward implementing the plan's program objectives.
[13] The Board's concerns over organizational and management issues
mirror the results of a retreat of senior BBG managers held in July
2001, which served as a springboard for the development of the Board's
strategic plan. The retreat represented a "no holds barred" look at
current activities and future operations. One retreat exercise focused
on identifying the key "restrainers" blocking the Board from moving
toward a future vision for U.S. international broadcasting as
articulated by the group. A tabulation of votes revealed that senior
managers believed that a "flawed BBG organizational structure" and
"very poor internal communications" were the two top restrainers the
Board faces.
[14] See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Information Agency:
Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions, GAO/NSIAD-96-179
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 1996).
[15] See GAO/NSIAD-00-222.
[16] We did not ask program managers for their views on the duplication
of roles and target audiences among broadcast entities since this issue
surfaced after our survey was released.
[17] VOA Portuguese to Brazil was eliminated as a direct result of
language service review. VOA Arabic and Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty's Persian service were eventually eliminated as the result of
decisions made during language service review and were replaced by
Radio Sawa and Radio Farda, respectively.
[18] Cutting language services can be challenging due to congressional
concerns that the proposed elimination or reduction of language
services is not supported by a clear rationale. For example, at OMB's
direction, the Board's fiscal year 2004 budget request was reduced by
$8.8 million to reflect the proposed elimination of broadcasts in nine
foreign languages assessed as low priority/low impact services in
connection with the Board's 2001/2002 language service review. However,
Senator Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has
expressed the view that the U.S. should not withdraw broadcasting
services in certain countries until there is assurance of a free and
fair press in those countries. In this regard, that Committee has
approved S.925 which contains a provision that would prohibit the BBG
from eliminating the foreign language broadcasts proposed for
elimination in the BBG's fiscal year 2004 budget request.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: